Just an excuse for the bothers to steer fox to the left. What a bunch of BS.

Quote:

Burgess recalled another instance that occurred in an elevator about three or four weeks later. "He let me off first, as gentlemen usually do," she said, "and I walked in front of him and as I was leaving the elevator, he said, 'Looking good there, girl.'" She described these moments as "embarrassing," "mortifying," and "street harassment in the office."

O'Reilly's behavior, Burgess continued, escalated to leering at her as she sat at her desk. "I just stopped looking at him, paying him any attention," she said, though "he had no reason to be at my desk at all." In another instance, "he walks past and says, 'Hey, Hot Chocolate.' But he doesn't look at me when he said it."

"I didn't respond," she recalled. "I was mortified because not only was it sexual, I took that as a very plantational remark." She further clarified that this harassment was different than when "someone pays you a compliment and they still treat you as a colleague." O'Reilly was "grunting at me and groaning and leering."

If Bill didn't do anything, he'll probably fight instead of paying. I would. Supposedly the problem was advertisers backing off. Rush's take was that the sponsors probably received a bunch of communications generated by bots that made the "backlash" look a lot bigger than it was. May be a good point. I can't prove or disprove, but it has been done before. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

I could care less how many pulled advertisements. Did you bother to read the link above as to why and where they decided to put the money the pulled? I guess not since you are a Dem and would overlook such "trival" facts that prove collusion, harassment, and foul play.

I could care less how many pulled advertisements. Did you bother to read the link above as to why and where they decided to put the money the pulled? I guess not since you are a Dem and would overlook such "trival" facts that prove collusion, harassment, and foul play.

It's not as moot as you think, but the circumstances and foul play behind them are not. I can also see you ignored the link I referenced that redvtt posted. Here's the link jsut in case you'd like to try again, but we all have faith you will blow it off and say "it's moot." What difference does it make, right? Typical lib answer and I'd expect nothing less than deflection from you and your gang.

Now, for the rest of the story. Y'all know there's more when Dave1 posts:
From Rubber Bills thread link above:

Quote:

...
According to O’Reilly’s lawyer Marc E. Kasowitz, the email proves these two organizations, run by longtime Clinton pals Mary Pat Bonner and David Brock, were leaders of a conspiracy against O’Reilly.

“Bill O’Reilly has been subjected to a brutal campaign of character assassination that is unprecedented in post-McCarthyist America,” Kasowitz warned in an Apr. 18th statement. “This law firm has uncovered evidence that the smear campaign is being orchestrated by far-left organizations bent on destroying O’Reilly for political and financial reasons.”

Liberal activist and Color of Change executive director Rashad Robinson told Salon Magazine the leftist campaign against O’Reilly had been two years in the making, and used The New York Times story as the final push.

“Once the Times story broke in early April, Color of Change, the women’s rights group UltraViolet, the National Organization for Women, the media watchdog Media Matters and a loose coalition of advertising insiders who call themselves the Sleeping Giants mobilized thousands of people to sign petitions and contact O’Reilly’s advertisers to urge them to remove their sponsorships,” Salon reported.

Where these advertisers have directed their spending has raised eyebrows around the beltway as well.

“When I looked into this, AllState Insurance, they put out that they’re going to decide to decouple themselves from Fox and all of that kind of thing. Then you check and see that they’re working with the Clinton Foundation on ‘developing a domestic violence program,’” Lord told Dom Giordano Friday on local station 1210 WPHT.

“Now, one is left a little speechless here about this kind of thing. Mitsubishi and T. Rowe Price, I could’ve gone on and on and on and on. I just picked a handful of these at random,” Lord said. “T. Rowe Price was listed as one of the ex-O’Reilly sponsors and yet you go the Federal Elections Committee and it reveals they were contributors to a political group called Investment Company Institute Political Action Committee, which, in turn, gave contributions to Hillary Clinton.”